Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
seeder

5 massive lies the Bible tells re Jesus

332 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Mr Walker

Given the irrelevant smart ass comment, I'm not really surprised neither you nor Habitat can comprehend what slavery is.

If you still don't get my response, I'll ask you a question; How often you do get beaten for taking out a mortgage?

When the loan sharks enforcers come round on Friday for your payment you cant afford.?

or maybe you just kill yourself so your family will at least have some insurance money to pay off the mortgage.

Slavery is when one person FORCES another to do their will or bidding In a sense it works because humans accept a bad life more than death

A mortgage fulfils both those conditions. It forces the mortgagee to do the bidding of another, OR to make a painful and difficult choice to avoid the mortgage. Slavery is ALWAYS a mechanism attached to socio economic consitions of its time. it is only seen as slaver when there is a choice.

No one considered a married woman a slave for thousands of years, and yet by the modern concept of slavery every married woman for thousands of years was a slave to their husband. There was no other social or economic choice so it was never seen as slavery, but just normal and inevitable, because there were no other realistic options . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Absolutely It is all subjective of course, but if i know another person is doing anything which might harm themselves, especially if it also has a harm or cost to others, then I have a duty to tell them this. if i didn't love them or care about them, I would still have the duty of secular humanism to another human being, but to do this out of love or compassion is different to just acting from duty/responsibility

In general adults have a right to hurt themselves if they don't also hurt others who are not consenting, but this doesn't mean I shouldn't try and talk them out of hurting themselves or, in extreme cases, physically prevent them from doing so. it is also true that if i have knowledge of how a person can live a happier healthier life, then i should tell them and not keep that knowledge to myslef. Asimov's second law ? One cant let a human come to harm by inaction, either.

I tell other people that, if the open themselves to the cosmic consciousness (or, if you prefer, an inner level of raised self consciousness)they can live a life without fear, loneliness, anger hate etc

That is true, but all i can do is TELL them.

If i didn't give a damn about others i would just live my life as happy as I am and let so many other humans live a half life, fulfilling only a small part of their true potential.

I cant speak for all proselytisers on any subject, but hat s why I bother.

Acting is more important than words, of course, as my mother and wife always remind me it is not enough ONLY to love and to care, if you never act to help others due to that love and compassion. .

For me,

I don't think it is a matter of being a more loving or compassionate person to "not" impose a lifestyle or religion on another. One can strategize to minimize harm without the other persons rights being compromised. It sounds like an excuse to stand in judgement of others.

With that being said, If I come to an event with a drinker, I have the right to ask if I get home safe ride or the heads up to make arrangements to do such, it is my job to look out for myself as an adult. Theses are things I address as it's my place. I can't honestly expect others to do my thinking.

For ex. I don't smoke and I don't like being around it, I have the option to leave the area where there is smoking and have. That resolves that. Most states do not have the stringent laws I enjoy in California, I find other ways without infringing on anyone. I can always find a way to compromise and that is leave. On religion, I have no place or say in how another walks or doesn't walk their path, Unless my pov is sought after and sometimes it is, other than that it's not my business what others do or don't do.

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

I made that comment because Mystic clearly misunderstood what Jesus was saying about requiring us to become 'like little children' He was the one that first quoted that in an earlier post, followed by his incorrect translation and his definition of a 'man child'. His repeated attempts at boxing all Christians into his horrible experiences is getting old and at his age, he should know better.

I tend to not take his posts too much. I feel he has things to say, so I do still respect him. But, I understand where you are coming from. I guess, that is where one must speak up with their opinions on this. To give a fair share of defending things as well. I think it's good you do that. :yes:

You are confusing the Conservative and Capitalistic ideology with teachings attributed to Jesus. They are very different.

That wasn't the point that Phil Collins was trying to make in that song. Thank you.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

Yes, one useful way I saw suggested how to look at it was to think of it as showing how humanity's view of God and their relationship to God developed, from a tribal god like many others to one whose concern is with humanity as a whole.

Now, there seems to be so many ways to read it and interpret it.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

Now, there seems to be so many ways to read it and interpret it.

Yes and the best interpretations are from the heart. Here's you a song. Happy Spring.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
barbco196

Absolutely It is all subjective of course, but if i know another person is doing anything which might harm themselves, especially if it also has a harm or cost to others, then I have a duty to tell them this. if i didn't love them or care about them from a religious or spiritual understanding, I would still have the duty of secular humanism to another human being, but to do this out of love or compassion is different to just acting from duty/responsibility

In general, adults have a right to hurt themselves if they don't also hurt others who are not consenting, but this doesn't mean I shouldn't try and talk them out of hurting themselves or, in extreme cases, physically prevent them from doing so. it is also true that if i have knowledge of how a person can live a happier healthier life, then i should tell them and not keep that knowledge to myself.

Asimov's first law. One can't let a human come to harm by inaction, either.

I tell other people that, if the open themselves to the cosmic consciousness (or, if you prefer, an inner level of raised self consciousness)they can live a life without fear, loneliness, anger hate etc

That is true, but all i can do is TELL them.

If i didn't give a damn about others i would just live my life as happy as I am and let so many other humans live a half life, fulfilling only a small part of their true potential.

I cant speak for all proselytisers on any subject, but hat s why I bother.

Acting is more important than words, of course, as my mother and wife always remind me it is not enough ONLY to love and to care, if you never act to help others due to that love and compassion. .

I don't know anyone that would go from being an atheist to Christian because someone brought it TO them. It has to be their decision. They have to want it. Maybe you have had other experiences, but I don't know of anyone that has accepted Christ as their Savior without choosing to seek Him.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

I don't know anyone that would go from being an atheist to Christian because someone brought it TO them. It has to be their decision. They have to want it. Maybe you have had other experiences, but I don't know of anyone that has accepted Christ as their Savior without choosing to seek Him.

Good point, what would be the point otherwise?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DingoLingo

Guys..

let it rest for a day.. enjoy the weekend..

You christian lot.. enjoy your weekend

You pagan lot.. shag yourself senseless with the blessings of the goddess.. enjoy your weekend

You atheist lot.. do what ever you do.. sports.. read.. movies.. etc.. enjoy your weekend

but everyone.. make sure you do not eat to much chocolate..

and we can start this again on monday..

sheesh people.. get off the net and enjoy yourself :D

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

the catholic church turned mary not the mom into a prostitute. that's one lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

Yes and the best interpretations are from the heart. Here's you a song. Happy Spring. https://youtu.be/4zI8sI4Ddqo

Oh I forgot about her. Thanks for the video. I need that so wrapped up I am in my Enya, Celtic Woman and Thunder. :tu:

I don't know anyone that would go from being an atheist to Christian because someone brought it TO them. It has to be their decision. They have to want it. Maybe you have had other experiences, but I don't know of anyone that has accepted Christ as their Savior without choosing to seek Him.

You see, that is what I have always told him. That's is what I always believed. I could never understand how one can just right then and there do that, when there is nothing in their core to feel it.

But, he believes you can 'choose' your feelings including 'choosing' your belief by instructing yourself.

(Well from what I understand, gotta keep my opinion here :D )

I always say 'choosing' your feelings is dangerous, because it goes against what one is really feeling based on what happened to give that reaction. I wouldn't doubt there have been experiences you have had to get you to believe today, as I have had my own to get me in my belief.

This is me, and the 'tenets' if you will, of my belief, but it's against prosetylizng. It feels it goes against the human will and it's experiences.

Guys..

let it rest for a day.. enjoy the weekend..

You christian lot.. enjoy your weekend

You pagan lot.. shag yourself senseless with the blessings of the goddess.. enjoy your weekend

You atheist lot.. do what ever you do.. sports.. read.. movies.. etc.. enjoy your weekend

Us ( ok, it's just me :D ) Bohemian New Agers, open my arms, mind, and hair ( ? ) and enjoy the loved ones.
but everyone.. make sure you do not eat to much chocolate..
Them fighting words!! :o
and we can start this again on monday..

sheesh people.. get off the net and enjoy yourself :D

What a lovely post. :tu:

...................... Ok. :w00t:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

Doug

That is not a bad argument for there actually having been a "HISTORICAL" Jesus.

I'm finally reading The Last Temptation of Christ by Nikos Kazantzakis, a work of fiction (perfect for Eastertide, right?). Like the Harry Potter character, Kazantzakis' Jesus undergoes increase in mana and in understanding by Jesus himself and by those around him as the story unfolds.

If anything, Kazantzakis' Jesus is more credible as a candidate for a historical person than any of the canonical Gospel Jesuses. And yet the K-Jesus is a VERY late (1960's) elaboration and enhanced retelling, and the book's roots are firmly in the canonical Gospel versions.

Progression and elaboration are irrelevant to original historicity. Retelling with advantages is a human activity, and its raw material is stories. It makes little or no difference whether the rawest stories are real or fictive.

What little difference it might make cannot be detected from a partial record of the stories themselves, especially a quirky selection of those versions which came well after whatever facts may have happened.

daniel

the catholic church turned mary not the mom into a prostitute. that's one lie.

Oddly not. The conceptual source is Pope Gregory the Great (not the same thing as "the Catholic Church" and surely not the catholic church uncapitalized, as you had it). But his sermon in question, written for Easter apparently, didn't fully commit to Mary Magdalene as the "sinful woman" (not a prostitute) who extravagantly repented. Later people firmed up the fact claim, and ditched Gregory as a source (until Dan Brown found that tidbit useful to sell Mary not as a prostitute, but as a pagan sex-cult priestess... just your stereotypical Jewish girl, right?).

Cool story, though, and an excuse for later Christian artists to crank out some pious porno ... hey, we can't tell her story without showing what she repented from, right?

Ms Mustard

Now, there seems to be so many ways to read it and interpret it.

IMO, that's one of the top reasons why Christianity still exists, thousands of years after Paul. No matter what happens, there is always one more reading of the story that covers the situation.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HalfAnIdiot

Turn the other cheek...yep, normally I would but MC continually interjects with the words: YOU GUYS. He's entitled to his opinion, he's entitled to write his opinion. When that opinion sticks me in a box with horrible people that have done horrible things, I take offense and will say something.

I was agreeing with you, barbco. Sorry if I was unclear.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GoldenWolf

Turn the other cheek...yep, normally I would but MC continually interjects with the words: YOU GUYS. He's entitled to his opinion, he's entitled to write his opinion. When that opinion sticks me in a box with horrible people that have done horrible things, I take offense and will say something.

Are you a Christian or not?

There are decent ones out there, but to completely deny all the horrible things alot of them have done is ridiculous.

Edited by Mystic Crusader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

Doug

Progression and elaboration are irrelevant to original historicity. Retelling with advantages is a human activity, and its raw material is stories. It makes little or no difference whether the rawest stories are real or fictive.

What little difference it might make cannot be detected from a partial record of the stories themselves, especially a quirky selection of those versions which came well after whatever facts may have happened.

Just because a sign says "Go that way," do you feel obliged to go that way? All a progression is, is a sign. Doesn't mean it's right.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

doug

Just because a sign says "Go that way," do you feel obliged to go that way?

To answer your question, it depends on the evident purpose and provenance of the sign. "Obligation" may not be what determines my response. I've just come in from the woods, where I was quite happy to follow the blazes without much deliberation about why I follow them, mindful that it is better for the surrounding area (and in some ways for me) if I stay on the marked trail.

To set up the rest of my reply, your example sign does at least say something, and so the question of whether I'd do that or something else instead makes some sense.

All a progression is, is a sign. Doesn't mean it's right.

I think that progression among obviously dependent literary works isn't much of a sign about an unavailable original version of the shared story. Progression as such doesn't say anything, so the question of following what it would have said had it said something doesn't much obligate me. Say that three times fast, eh?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

I don't know anyone that would go from being an atheist to Christian because someone brought it TO them. It has to be their decision. They have to want it. Maybe you have had other experiences, but I don't know of anyone that has accepted Christ as their Savior without choosing to seek Him.

That wasn't my point

I do what i do because it is right for me to do so.

It would be wrong for me NOT to tell others of anything which could help them in life when I was advantaged by that knowledge.

Of COURSE every individual must accept it for themselves or reject it (and in belief based things it will ONLY work if it is accepted in a person's heart and mind) But unless someone demonstrates through words and actions the empowerment and love given by a belief or knowledge, then another might not know of it. If I knew vaccination could save a child's life and never told someone who did not know this, then I would be responsible for the child's death, as surely as if I killed it myself. if i did tell them then i have done my duty and what the parent chooses to do is their responsibility. if they don't vaccinate and the child dies, it is their responsibility, no longer mine.

Theologically once i tell a person of the benefits of belief and faith (of ANY type) i have done my duty However, being me and because i act from love and not just a minimal duty, i will also argue how and why belief and faith provide benefits, in order to better inform, and thus help people decide. I would do the same with vaccination . Ie not just say it saves lives, but explain why and how.

Religion is belief based, but if you find a belief which transforms and improves your life, and provides huge physical and practical benefits to you and your community, then you have a duty/responsibility to share it, and then to let people choose what to do.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

For me,

I don't think it is a matter of being a more loving or compassionate person to "not" impose a lifestyle or religion on another. One can strategize to minimize harm without the other persons rights being compromised. It sounds like an excuse to stand in judgement of others.

With that being said, If I come to an event with a drinker, I have the right to ask if I get home safe ride or the heads up to make arrangements to do such, it is my job to look out for myself as an adult. Theses are things I address as it's my place. I can't honestly expect others to do my thinking.

For ex. I don't smoke and I don't like being around it, I have the option to leave the area where there is smoking and have. That resolves that. Most states do not have the stringent laws I enjoy in California, I find other ways without infringing on anyone. I can always find a way to compromise and that is leave. On religion, I have no place or say in how another walks or doesn't walk their path, Unless my pov is sought after and sometimes it is, other than that it's not my business what others do or don't do.

The difference is that while you think you only have a duty or responsibility to your own safety, i also believe have a duty or responsibility to the drinker. How could i let them do something which might harm themselves or someone else if i can prevent it?.

I agree that is best to minimise harm without taking away another's rights, yet what are rights anyway? In actuality they are community granted privileges which are dependent on an individuals behaviour and can be removed where a person acts in a dangerous or inappropriate manner. In other words no one has an inherent right or freedom to harm themselves if that harm comes at a cost to others which the community deems they do not want to pay.

. In Australia you can not smoke in a public place, including malls and outside eating areas, you cannot smoke in a car if children are in the car. You cant smoke at sporting arenas These restrictions reflect the community's growing refusal to pay the costs associated with people's freedom to smoke. A community has not just a right but an obligation to place restrictions on individuals whose behaviour causes harm.

You should not have to walk away when someone else lights up in your presence. This makes your rights less than the smokers rights.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

The difference is that while you think you only have a duty or responsibility to your own safety, i also believe have a duty or responsibility to the drinker. How could i let them do something which might harm themselves or someone else if i can prevent it?.

I agree that is best to minimise harm without taking away another's rights, yet what are rights anyway? In actuality they are community granted privileges which are dependent on an individuals behaviour and can be removed where a person acts in a dangerous or inappropriate manner. In other words no one has an inherent right or freedom to harm themselves if that harm comes at a cost to others which the community deems they do not want to pay.

. In Australia you can not smoke in a public place, including malls and outside eating areas, you cannot smoke in a car if children are in the car. You cant smoke at sporting arenas These restrictions reflect the community's growing refusal to pay the costs associated with people's freedom to smoke. A community has not just a right but an obligation to place restrictions on individuals whose behaviour causes harm.

You should not have to walk away when someone else lights up in your presence. This makes your rights less than the smokers rights.

I haven't had issues in my state, most know the laws and honor them where I am. I have had to leave due to smoking in other states because they do not have the same laws, and I can't stand in judgment or finger point. I have to work with what is available.

I don't go out much anymore, but when I did I was always the designated driver, I offered to look out for my group of friends.

I cannot dictate to another what they can or cannot do if it is within their legal right and no law has been broken.

Because a person smokes or drinks and I don't doesn't make me better then them.

A smoker isn't less kind or compassionate, or capable of empathy because they smoke.

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

Talking about smoking, I am amazed that the reason people smoke is rarely broached in discussions of the habit, it is always just "don't do it ! ". Nicotine is the only known drug that reduces anxiety, without affecting performance of tasks. Other substances cause drowsiness etc.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Talking about smoking, I am amazed that the reason people smoke is rarely broached in discussions of the habit, it is always just "don't do it ! ". Nicotine is the only known drug that reduces anxiety, without affecting performance of tasks. Other substances cause drowsiness etc.

It has bad effects too; I am not sure that the positives outweigh the negative.

But there might be some positive effects of pure nicotine.

You might find this interesting.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1859921

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

It has bad effects too; I am not sure that the positives outweigh the negative.

But there might be some positive effects of pure nicotine.

You might find this interesting.

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/1859921

Breathing in any kind of smoke is a dud idea, so yes it is unequivocally best avoided, but I'd say the medical establishment won't be keen to promote the therapeutic uses of Nicotine, for fear of giving smokers an excuse to continue.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Breathing in any kind of smoke is a dud idea, so yes it is unequivocally best avoided, but I'd say the medical establishment won't be keen to promote the therapeutic uses of Nicotine, for fear of giving smokers an excuse to continue.

Indeed!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

Doug

I'm finally reading The Last Temptation of Christ by Nikos Kazantzakis, a work of fiction (perfect for Eastertide, right?). Like the Harry Potter character, Kazantzakis' Jesus undergoes increase in mana and in understanding by Jesus himself and by those around him as the story unfolds.

If anything, Kazantzakis' Jesus is more credible as a candidate for a historical person than any of the canonical Gospel Jesuses. And yet the K-Jesus is a VERY late (1960's) elaboration and enhanced retelling, and the book's roots are firmly in the canonical Gospel versions.

Progression and elaboration are irrelevant to original historicity. Retelling with advantages is a human activity, and its raw material is stories. It makes little or no difference whether the rawest stories are real or fictive.

What little difference it might make cannot be detected from a partial record of the stories themselves, especially a quirky selection of those versions which came well after whatever facts may have happened.

daniel

Oddly not. The conceptual source is Pope Gregory the Great (not the same thing as "the Catholic Church" and surely not the catholic church uncapitalized, as you had it). But his sermon in question, written for Easter apparently, didn't fully commit to Mary Magdalene as the "sinful woman" (not a prostitute) who extravagantly repented. Later people firmed up the fact claim, and ditched Gregory as a source (until Dan Brown found that tidbit useful to sell Mary not as a prostitute, but as a pagan sex-cult priestess... just your stereotypical Jewish girl, right?).

Cool story, though, and an excuse for later Christian artists to crank out some pious porno ... hey, we can't tell her story without showing what she repented from, right?

Ms Mustard

IMO, that's one of the top reasons why Christianity still exists, thousands of years after Paul. No matter what happens, there is always one more reading of the story that covers the situation.

Kind of like more books being published about the sinking of the Titanic and it's been a hundred years since then. ( Which is ok, I'm a Titanic buff, and I like more tidbits. )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
starise

While I find others views on these subjects interesting, I also find the back and forth tiring mentally.

At one point several years ago when I stated my beliefs which I feel are based on as much factual information as I could find, I was asked to prove my views. I spent considerable time attempting to help these individuals see at least how I arrived at my conclusions.

Anything I submitted was either not considered factual by these people or somehow degraded I suspect simply because of my view. So they kill you asking for data only to attack any data I submitted. Of course they have their own ideas on what they think passes scrutiny.

The interesting thing about this is that the things they were taking as factual were from poor sources. IOW their data didn't need to pass the same stringent tests they were placing on my info. This is a no win situation.

Then there are the inferences or just direct comments that I had to be less intelligent to believe the things I believe. If you knew me you would know this simply isn't true. You couldn't hold my job if you weren't intelligent.

Add to this the confusion of re directing the discussion. In some cases I think for some it's more about winning a debate than finding a truth, or appearing popular to others. Then there's the herd mentality. Solidarity can be misguided.

I once allowed myself to be pulled into this trying to show things from my perspective and listen to others. There's no point in it. There are agendas both misguided and true. The result was total frustration. It took me away from productive activities.I let it wear me down. So I drew the line. I won't attempt to reason with an unreasonable person anymore. Objective people, yes. If you don't agree with me but we still respect one another this is all I can hope for. I don't disrespect anyone for their views. The only exception being if their views include personal attack and humiliation ( or attempted humiliation).

I like unexplained things, but frankly these sites tend to typically bring out people that for whatever reason want the dark things in life. I don't have a fetish with the dark but I try to stay informed about it. You may laugh but I can literally feel it sometimes. Like walking into a place where bad things have happened.I much prefer where I'm at. I don't have the need to appear like anything to anyone. I really have little interest in impressing anyone. Think my main motive here is to warn anyone that struggles with certain individuals is a total waste of valuable time.

Do you really think you'll find ultimate truth on some message board? Really? Picking the most interesting debater isn't truth, sticking with your buds isn't truth. Misery loves company.

If there is no truth then anything can be viewed as truth. If there is truth in belief , then nothing anyone says or does or thinks will change that.Truth will still be standing. If there is truth then there is the opposite of truth. We live in a world that uses generalization to make it seem that we can all create our own unique version of the truth. Being true to us isn't the same as reality unless our views align with that.

We can pacify ourselves with a self created fake truth and be content with a lie, at least for awhile. Truth can sometimes look like the loosing side in a debate. How many times have you been convinced you were right about something but you were wrong? I'll admit to it.

If given the choice between a comfortable lie and a difficult truth which would you choose?

We want to go through life as comfortable as possible and this includes many massaging their world view to make it palatable. Are we suckers for comfort ? or are we willing to get into the trenches if necessary.

How much about what we believe dictates our future? Is our belief based on being against something and therefore we go toward the opposite thing? Shouldn't belief be more based on what we think is truth?Running from something usually doesn't assure a good decision because we're looking for whatever life boat happens to be handy.

Then there's the experiential part of belief I hear people talk about. It is easier to believe something if we experience it ourselves. The skeptic will usually over analyze the experience and conclude it wasn't legitimate or it was not what it seemed to be. If they can't explain or rationalize it ( I've started to hate the term " scientific" in some forums) it mustn't be legitimate. In my opinion , just because it doesn't have a scientific explanation doesn't mean it isn't legitimate. Science only gets us so far. If the world depended on your test tubes we wouldn't be here.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
barbco196

While I find others views on these subjects interesting, I also find the back and forth tiring mentally.

At one point several years ago when I stated my beliefs which I feel are based on as much factual information as I could find, I was asked to prove my views. I spent considerable time attempting to help these individuals see at least how I arrived at my conclusions.

Anything I submitted was either not considered factual by these people or somehow degraded I suspect simply because of my view. So they kill you asking for data only to attack any data I submitted. Of course they have their own ideas on what they think passes scrutiny.

The interesting thing about this is that the things they were taking as factual were from poor sources. IOW their data didn't need to pass the same stringent tests they were placing on my info. This is a no win situation.

Then there are the inferences or just direct comments that I had to be less intelligent to believe the things I believe. If you knew me you would know this simply isn't true. You couldn't hold my job if you weren't intelligent.

Add to this the confusion of re directing the discussion. In some cases I think for some it's more about winning a debate than finding a truth, or appearing popular to others. Then there's the herd mentality. Solidarity can be misguided.

I once allowed myself to be pulled into this trying to show things from my perspective and listen to others. There's no point in it. There are agendas both misguided and true. The result was total frustration. It took me away from productive activities.I let it wear me down. So I drew the line. I won't attempt to reason with an unreasonable person anymore. Objective people, yes. If you don't agree with me but we still respect one another this is all I can hope for. I don't disrespect anyone for their views. The only exception being if their views include personal attack and humiliation ( or attempted humiliation).

I like unexplained things, but frankly these sites tend to typically bring out people that for whatever reason want the dark things in life. I don't have a fetish with the dark but I try to stay informed about it. You may laugh but I can literally feel it sometimes. Like walking into a place where bad things have happened.I much prefer where I'm at. I don't have the need to appear like anything to anyone. I really have little interest in impressing anyone. Think my main motive here is to warn anyone that struggles with certain individuals is a total waste of valuable time.

Do you really think you'll find ultimate truth on some message board? Really? Picking the most interesting debater isn't truth, sticking with your buds isn't truth. Misery loves company.

If there is no truth then anything can be viewed as truth. If there is truth in belief , then nothing anyone says or does or thinks will change that.Truth will still be standing. If there is truth then there is the opposite of truth. We live in a world that uses generalization to make it seem that we can all create our own unique version of the truth. Being true to us isn't the same as reality unless our views align with that.

We can pacify ourselves with a self created fake truth and be content with a lie, at least for awhile. Truth can sometimes look like the loosing side in a debate. How many times have you been convinced you were right about something but you were wrong? I'll admit to it.

If given the choice between a comfortable lie and a difficult truth which would you choose?

We want to go through life as comfortable as possible and this includes many massaging their world view to make it palatable. Are we suckers for comfort ? or are we willing to get into the trenches if necessary.

How much about what we believe dictates our future? Is our belief based on being against something and therefore we go toward the opposite thing? Shouldn't belief be more based on what we think is truth?Running from something usually doesn't assure a good decision because we're looking for whatever life boat happens to be handy.

Then there's the experiential part of belief I hear people talk about. It is easier to believe something if we experience it ourselves. The skeptic will usually over analyze the experience and conclude it wasn't legitimate or it was not what it seemed to be. If they can't explain or rationalize it ( I've started to hate the term " scientific" in some forums) it mustn't be legitimate. In my opinion , just because it doesn't have a scientific explanation doesn't mean it isn't legitimate. Science only gets us so far. If the world depended on your test tubes we wouldn't be here.

Yet, a part of you decided to become a member of this site and post your views. We all want to be heard. We all want to be right. That's part of what makes us human. I am fairly new here and I thought the same things you do for the first few months...then, I began to realize that the people on here have taught me a lot. You find yourself 'googling' things that you never would have considered before coming here. You start digging deeper. Of course we all get tied up in the ridiculousness as well, but if you stick around, you might enjoy being surrounded by other like-minded, mostly nice people.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.